I don't really see your reasoning on that one. "Thief, The Dark Project" was released in 1998, and is more centered on using magic and other interesting extraordinary abilities to accomplish some number of goals.
"Metal Gear 1", on the other hand, was released in 1987, and is basically the epithome of the first stealth game. While I do see the whole "hide in the shadows" aspect of "Thief," it seems that sneaking around in MG1 with a knife, pistol, full-body suit, and pair of night vision goggles really defines "stealth game" to me a lot better.
Have we moved away from 56K-modem-oriented design, only to be pulled back in that direction?"
I don't see this as really being a problem. People don't really browse the internet with handheld devices (phones, PDAs, etc) actually attempting to REPLACE their computer. People only want to be able to check their stocks or recent headlines. When the content you want to look at is just a dozen lines of text, a PDA is more than adequate. If you want to browse a page that is designed for 1600x1200 resolutions, chances are that the page ISN'T something you need to check right away, and can wait until you get to your computer.
Face it, that time you're SMSing your wife and doing crossword puzzles is time you're stealing from your employer.
As a manager, I have a lot of light to shed on this subject.
Essentially, every time we call in an "efficiency expert" who advises us to cut back on the number of breaks employees get, I shrug it off. An employer with any experience at all knows better than to count productivity simply in "man-hours." Man-hours of work are little more than a theory figure for comparison purposes, but they don't have any real value. When I try to weigh employee productivity, my equation isn't simply "ManHoursWorked/ManHoursPossible". It's something more like "ManHoursWorked*WorkDonePerHour/WorkDonePossible".
Of course, the real equation isn't THAT simple either, but it does say a lot. If I'm a fun-nazi to all my employees, all it does is create general resentment toward both myself and the job. Unhappy employees have a MUCH larger tendancy to do poorly at work, and slack off even more when I'm not watching. On the other hand, if I'm somewhat lenient about my policy, letting my employees take breaks when they feel it's necessary, they're happy and tend to get more work done in the time they work. End result, I have more more work done at the end of the day. (Which of course makes my salary go up every couple years, so it works out well for me too.) If someone tells me that my employees are "stealing" time from me, I laugh and don't worry about it, because the time they DO put in is much more valuable.
...very powerful AD Hunter function, which can block out many online ads that slow down the computer and/or install spyware/adware without your knowledge in addition to blocking out most pop-up ad windows.
Firefox does this too. If you download a program called "Firetweaker XP," you can mess around with Firefox a little more in depth. Specifically, Firetweaker allows you to turn OFF banner ads completely, with about three clicks. I've been using this program for months, and I think I've only seen about two or three banner ads since then. I can't speak for IE7, but of course, Firefox also has popup blocking as well, and IE7 is going to need to do a pretty good job to keep with Firefox.
I find it funny that my post about fish fighting was rated 0 flamebait, while the post I replied to about fish fighting was rated +2 funny. I'm assuming that therefore it's humane to make just a couple fish fight, compared to a lot of fish fighting?
I think my opinion is best expressed by the person a couple posts up: Fish fight in real life. Putting fish into a tank together isn't putting them in some extreme out-of-the-ordinary situation that they wouldn't deal with on a day to day basis if they were wild.
Don't lay your liberal extremist views on me, because your rules only apply in a world where nothing can ever be hurt or die.
It's funny this topic comes up, because in two days we're about to have our Betta Fish Royale. 27 of us bought betta fish a week and a half ago, and now they're "training" for the big day. (which means they're just sitting in little tanks/tins/whatever.) However, we're just going to stick them all in one big tank, and have a huge fight, instead of several small ones.
Of course, its our freshman year in college as well, and of course we're going to video this whole thing.
If they try this, they're getting what they deserve. Anyone stupid enough to actually follow through on those instructions wasn't worth their weight in oxygen anyway.
If the police aren't effective, lobby your representatives
How often does this actually have a positive effect? One man's note to his representative is basically worthless. A representative will only do something when he starts receiving many, many letters from his constituents. If you want to mobilize enough people to convince your representative to DO something, you're going to have to go on a campaign around your neighborhood and try to convince the masses that they aren't being effectively protected by their police force. Maybe they'll disagree, or just won't want to take the time to write a letter. Maybe there will be a force opposing you. (Like, say, the current police force, unhappy about your criticisms. See if they're will to protect you from criminals while you're lobbying against them.)
There are hundreds of obstacles in the way, and even if you were able to convince your representative in ONE DAY to mobilize, the police force wouldn't be changed for months. In the mean time, what do you do? Hope you're never attacked until the police are ready?
Granted, the odds of being attacked in your home are a thousand to one. But if the situation occurs where there is someone threatening me, I feel safer protecting myself, versus leaving my life in the hands of the police. Even if they have more training than me, it doesn't mean that I'm completely inept, I can defend myself.
This is where the gun control freaks start spitting flames, calling me a "gun nut" and that I think I'm Rambo because I would shoot someone that was trying to hurt me. Let's hear it guys, call me a psycho. I don't care what you say. The difference between me and you isn't that I'm some kind of sicko that gets off on playing cops and robbers with live ammo, the difference is that I'm not afraid to hold my life in my own hands. If the police happen to be helping defend me, that's great, I'd love to have someone else watching my ass too, but I'm sure as hell not going to sit and twiddle my thumbs, hoping that the good guys beat the bad guys.
Even in spite of everything I just said, I'm sure there will be several responses to this post, claiming that I think I'm John Wayne and I like to sling my gun around like a plaything. I really don't care what you believe about my gun habits, my mind is made up: A person's only SURE line of defense is to defend himself. Relying on other people is too uncertain. It's not a BAD thing to have police, I'd still call them if someone broke in, it's just not (in my opinion) safer to leave your life SOLELY in their hands.
Oh, and a couple more things.
Where do you think all those guns the "bad guys" have came from?
Well, did you ever think that perhaps they BOUGHT them? It's not impossible to buy a gun in this country. If your record is clean before you buy a gun, you just have to wait a couple weeks. Or, if you're a criminal and want a gun, you can have a friend who isn't a criminal go buy one for you. Not every homeowner who has a gun is stupid enough to let it get taken from him.
And to those who are about to tell their tales about homeowners hurting their own family members with their guns: The odds of being attacked in your own home are, let's say 1 in a 1000. (Not a factual number.) However, out of all the times that a criminal invaded someone's house, and a homeowner used a gun, how many times did he injure his own family? 1 in 100? That means that the average number of times a gun owner hurt his own family with his gun is 1 in 100000. Obviously, my numbers aren't exact, but anyone who would like to spend the time to look up the actual numbers would find that the odds of shooting your own family are on the same order of magnitude.
All that aside, if the situation were me in my home, protecting my family, I would have the good sense to make sure all my family was accounted for before I shot anyone. In fact, I wouldn't shoot anyone right away anyway; instead, I'd wait with my family in the basement, with my wife on the phone with the police. If someone came down and had a weapon in hand, then I'd shoot him. Is that crazy? Fair enough. But you, the sane one, are more likely to be killed than I am.
While I laughed my ass off when I read this, I think he's saying more than he knows. (or maybe he knows exactly what he's saying.) What if you're being attacked in your home, and your smart gun suddenly decides (due to circuitry failure or some other business) that you're not it's rightful owner? Your gun is now nothing more than a bludgeon.
We've already put computers into every household appliance and most forms of transportation, and now we're introducing them into our guns. Do we really need to computerize weapons, knowing that all we're doing is basing MORE of our security on electronics? I would be happier knowing that the fate of the world still lies at least partially in the hands of humans, not in the circuitry of a processor.
Don't presume to speak for the over 2 billion Christians in the world
When did I say that I was speaking for anyone? All I did was simply state some facts. Whether or not people these days feel good or not about the crusades is completely beyond me, and I'd be a fool to try to think that I know the answer.
the Crusades were justified, in concept if not in execution
Justified from your point of view. Maybe justified from my point of view too. But it doesn't really matter, because maybe it wasn't jusified from theirs.
I also don't carry any grudges against others
Great, I'm glad to hear it, but your holier than thou garbage isn't addressing my point. Muslims DID invade Jerusalem, and basically tried to take over. But on the other hand, they didn't attempt to hunt down every last Christian and destroy the entire population outright.
Now before you turn on the flame cannon, let me state one more time: I'm not defending anyone here, muslim or Christian. As I've stated twice, I'm just pointing out that muslims aren't just crazy and want to blow up the world, like everyone is saying.
End of story. I'm done posting on this subject.
Well of course no Americans were involved in the civil war. Americans, as we refer to them today, wouldn't exist until several hundred years after the crusades.
But yes, the Dutch did. So did the English. Where do Americans come from?
Don't misunderstand me. 1000 years ago yours and my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-gr eat grandfather killed some muslims, but I'm not trying to say that we owe something to the Arabs because of it. I'm just pointing out that maybe they have a reason to be pissed off at us.
Too many Americans have no idea what the crusades are. And maybe, just maybe that's why 90% of the country is thinking, "Well gee, I wonder why these muslim guys are trying to kill us? What did we ever do to them?"
We? We meaning Christians. Okay, so that's a very broad term. I'm not a Christian, and maybe you aren't either, but Christianity is the biggest religion in the US, (correct me on that one if I'm wrong) and middle-easterners view the US as all Christians. (The same way us Americans view middle-easterners as all muslims.) And we, meaning, in general, us Christians spent quite a hefty load of time murdering muslims back in the day.
Maybe you're not SUPPOSED to see the whole thing? I'm not sure about the 180 degree chamber, but for the sphere you could be playing a first person shooter with a little wireless gun in your hand, and you shoot stuff that appears on all sides of you. Then it'd REALLY be first person.
You know what's funny about your post? The fact that you were essentially correct about your "holier than thou" comment, but then you went on to talk about something that has NOTHING to do with the phrase "holier than thou."
If you're trying to prove what you're saying, maybe you should have pointed out that he's just trying to look good by offering his "advice," thereby making himself look superior. Or maybe you shouldn't have used that comment at all, since you don't know what it means.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really see your reasoning on that one. "Thief, The Dark Project" was released in 1998, and is more centered on using magic and other interesting extraordinary abilities to accomplish some number of goals.
"Metal Gear 1", on the other hand, was released in 1987, and is basically the epithome of the first stealth game. While I do see the whole "hide in the shadows" aspect of "Thief," it seems that sneaking around in MG1 with a knife, pistol, full-body suit, and pair of night vision goggles really defines "stealth game" to me a lot better.
Have we moved away from 56K-modem-oriented design, only to be pulled back in that direction?"
I don't see this as really being a problem. People don't really browse the internet with handheld devices (phones, PDAs, etc) actually attempting to REPLACE their computer. People only want to be able to check their stocks or recent headlines. When the content you want to look at is just a dozen lines of text, a PDA is more than adequate. If you want to browse a page that is designed for 1600x1200 resolutions, chances are that the page ISN'T something you need to check right away, and can wait until you get to your computer.
Face it, that time you're SMSing your wife and doing crossword puzzles is time you're stealing from your employer.
.
As a manager, I have a lot of light to shed on this subject.
Essentially, every time we call in an "efficiency expert" who advises us to cut back on the number of breaks employees get, I shrug it off. An employer with any experience at all knows better than to count productivity simply in "man-hours." Man-hours of work are little more than a theory figure for comparison purposes, but they don't have any real value. When I try to weigh employee productivity, my equation isn't simply "ManHoursWorked/ManHoursPossible". It's something more like "ManHoursWorked*WorkDonePerHour/WorkDonePossible"
Of course, the real equation isn't THAT simple either, but it does say a lot. If I'm a fun-nazi to all my employees, all it does is create general resentment toward both myself and the job. Unhappy employees have a MUCH larger tendancy to do poorly at work, and slack off even more when I'm not watching. On the other hand, if I'm somewhat lenient about my policy, letting my employees take breaks when they feel it's necessary, they're happy and tend to get more work done in the time they work. End result, I have more more work done at the end of the day. (Which of course makes my salary go up every couple years, so it works out well for me too.) If someone tells me that my employees are "stealing" time from me, I laugh and don't worry about it, because the time they DO put in is much more valuable.
...very powerful AD Hunter function, which can block out many online ads that slow down the computer and/or install spyware/adware without your knowledge in addition to blocking out most pop-up ad windows.
Firefox does this too. If you download a program called "Firetweaker XP," you can mess around with Firefox a little more in depth. Specifically, Firetweaker allows you to turn OFF banner ads completely, with about three clicks. I've been using this program for months, and I think I've only seen about two or three banner ads since then. I can't speak for IE7, but of course, Firefox also has popup blocking as well, and IE7 is going to need to do a pretty good job to keep with Firefox.
New equation:
Replying to yourself = +11 mod points
Interesting. Mods are funny people, I love'em. Such unpredictable little things, aren't they?
Am I the only person in the world who understands that the grandparent post was making a reference to the book 1984?
I find it funny that my post about fish fighting was rated 0 flamebait, while the post I replied to about fish fighting was rated +2 funny. I'm assuming that therefore it's humane to make just a couple fish fight, compared to a lot of fish fighting?
I think my opinion is best expressed by the person a couple posts up: Fish fight in real life. Putting fish into a tank together isn't putting them in some extreme out-of-the-ordinary situation that they wouldn't deal with on a day to day basis if they were wild.
Don't lay your liberal extremist views on me, because your rules only apply in a world where nothing can ever be hurt or die.
It's funny this topic comes up, because in two days we're about to have our Betta Fish Royale. 27 of us bought betta fish a week and a half ago, and now they're "training" for the big day. (which means they're just sitting in little tanks/tins/whatever.) However, we're just going to stick them all in one big tank, and have a huge fight, instead of several small ones.
Of course, its our freshman year in college as well, and of course we're going to video this whole thing.
Actually, I bet the first thing French people would ban is winning wars. The old "if we can't do it, you can't do it either."
If they try this, they're getting what they deserve. Anyone stupid enough to actually follow through on those instructions wasn't worth their weight in oxygen anyway.
If the police aren't effective, lobby your representatives
How often does this actually have a positive effect? One man's note to his representative is basically worthless. A representative will only do something when he starts receiving many, many letters from his constituents. If you want to mobilize enough people to convince your representative to DO something, you're going to have to go on a campaign around your neighborhood and try to convince the masses that they aren't being effectively protected by their police force. Maybe they'll disagree, or just won't want to take the time to write a letter. Maybe there will be a force opposing you. (Like, say, the current police force, unhappy about your criticisms. See if they're will to protect you from criminals while you're lobbying against them.)
There are hundreds of obstacles in the way, and even if you were able to convince your representative in ONE DAY to mobilize, the police force wouldn't be changed for months. In the mean time, what do you do? Hope you're never attacked until the police are ready?
Granted, the odds of being attacked in your home are a thousand to one. But if the situation occurs where there is someone threatening me, I feel safer protecting myself, versus leaving my life in the hands of the police. Even if they have more training than me, it doesn't mean that I'm completely inept, I can defend myself.
This is where the gun control freaks start spitting flames, calling me a "gun nut" and that I think I'm Rambo because I would shoot someone that was trying to hurt me. Let's hear it guys, call me a psycho. I don't care what you say. The difference between me and you isn't that I'm some kind of sicko that gets off on playing cops and robbers with live ammo, the difference is that I'm not afraid to hold my life in my own hands. If the police happen to be helping defend me, that's great, I'd love to have someone else watching my ass too, but I'm sure as hell not going to sit and twiddle my thumbs, hoping that the good guys beat the bad guys.
Even in spite of everything I just said, I'm sure there will be several responses to this post, claiming that I think I'm John Wayne and I like to sling my gun around like a plaything. I really don't care what you believe about my gun habits, my mind is made up: A person's only SURE line of defense is to defend himself. Relying on other people is too uncertain. It's not a BAD thing to have police, I'd still call them if someone broke in, it's just not (in my opinion) safer to leave your life SOLELY in their hands.
Oh, and a couple more things.
Where do you think all those guns the "bad guys" have came from?
Well, did you ever think that perhaps they BOUGHT them? It's not impossible to buy a gun in this country. If your record is clean before you buy a gun, you just have to wait a couple weeks. Or, if you're a criminal and want a gun, you can have a friend who isn't a criminal go buy one for you. Not every homeowner who has a gun is stupid enough to let it get taken from him.
And to those who are about to tell their tales about homeowners hurting their own family members with their guns: The odds of being attacked in your own home are, let's say 1 in a 1000. (Not a factual number.) However, out of all the times that a criminal invaded someone's house, and a homeowner used a gun, how many times did he injure his own family? 1 in 100? That means that the average number of times a gun owner hurt his own family with his gun is 1 in 100000. Obviously, my numbers aren't exact, but anyone who would like to spend the time to look up the actual numbers would find that the odds of shooting your own family are on the same order of magnitude.
All that aside, if the situation were me in my home, protecting my family, I would have the good sense to make sure all my family was accounted for before I shot anyone. In fact, I wouldn't shoot anyone right away anyway; instead, I'd wait with my family in the basement, with my wife on the phone with the police. If someone came down and had a weapon in hand, then I'd shoot him. Is that crazy? Fair enough. But you, the sane one, are more likely to be killed than I am.
I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave.
While I laughed my ass off when I read this, I think he's saying more than he knows. (or maybe he knows exactly what he's saying.) What if you're being attacked in your home, and your smart gun suddenly decides (due to circuitry failure or some other business) that you're not it's rightful owner? Your gun is now nothing more than a bludgeon.
We've already put computers into every household appliance and most forms of transportation, and now we're introducing them into our guns. Do we really need to computerize weapons, knowing that all we're doing is basing MORE of our security on electronics? I would be happier knowing that the fate of the world still lies at least partially in the hands of humans, not in the circuitry of a processor.
I don't know why I said "civil war" when I meant "crusades." Too much class and not enough sleep.
Don't presume to speak for the over 2 billion Christians in the world When did I say that I was speaking for anyone? All I did was simply state some facts. Whether or not people these days feel good or not about the crusades is completely beyond me, and I'd be a fool to try to think that I know the answer. the Crusades were justified, in concept if not in execution Justified from your point of view. Maybe justified from my point of view too. But it doesn't really matter, because maybe it wasn't jusified from theirs. I also don't carry any grudges against others Great, I'm glad to hear it, but your holier than thou garbage isn't addressing my point. Muslims DID invade Jerusalem, and basically tried to take over. But on the other hand, they didn't attempt to hunt down every last Christian and destroy the entire population outright. Now before you turn on the flame cannon, let me state one more time: I'm not defending anyone here, muslim or Christian. As I've stated twice, I'm just pointing out that muslims aren't just crazy and want to blow up the world, like everyone is saying. End of story. I'm done posting on this subject.
Well of course no Americans were involved in the civil war. Americans, as we refer to them today, wouldn't exist until several hundred years after the crusades.
r eat grandfather killed some muslims, but I'm not trying to say that we owe something to the Arabs because of it. I'm just pointing out that maybe they have a reason to be pissed off at us.
But yes, the Dutch did. So did the English. Where do Americans come from?
Don't misunderstand me. 1000 years ago yours and my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-g
Too many Americans have no idea what the crusades are. And maybe, just maybe that's why 90% of the country is thinking, "Well gee, I wonder why these muslim guys are trying to kill us? What did we ever do to them?"
We? We meaning Christians. Okay, so that's a very broad term. I'm not a Christian, and maybe you aren't either, but Christianity is the biggest religion in the US, (correct me on that one if I'm wrong) and middle-easterners view the US as all Christians. (The same way us Americans view middle-easterners as all muslims.) And we, meaning, in general, us Christians spent quite a hefty load of time murdering muslims back in the day.
Yeah, I know, we Americans are so biggotted. The enlightened Europeans, especially the Dutch, would never torch mosques or lynch Arabs. Right?
Following your line of sarcasm...
Yeah, because we never murdered middle easterners by the THOUSANDS during the crusades, did we?
Maybe you're not SUPPOSED to see the whole thing? I'm not sure about the 180 degree chamber, but for the sphere you could be playing a first person shooter with a little wireless gun in your hand, and you shoot stuff that appears on all sides of you. Then it'd REALLY be first person.
You know what's funny about your post? The fact that you were essentially correct about your "holier than thou" comment, but then you went on to talk about something that has NOTHING to do with the phrase "holier than thou."
If you're trying to prove what you're saying, maybe you should have pointed out that he's just trying to look good by offering his "advice," thereby making himself look superior. Or maybe you shouldn't have used that comment at all, since you don't know what it means.